Mark my words, this was a hostile poaching operation by Microsoft. Like 65% convinced this was the case. We won’t know until 10 years have passed and some dumb emails end up in discovery on some unrelated lawsuit.
- Sam wants to push for more & quicker profit with MS and VC backing, but board resists, constant conflicts
- Sam aligns with MS, hatch a plan on how to gut OpenAI for its know-how, ppl, and tech, leaving the non-profit part bleeding out in the gutter
- Sam & MS set a trap: Sam crosses some red lines, maybe taking commercial decisions without board approval. Potentially there was also some whispering in key ears (e.g, Ilya) by seemingly helpful advisors/VCs to push & pull at the same time on both sides
- Board has enough after Sam doesn’t back down, fires him & other co-founder guy
- MS and VCs go full attack to discredit board. After some info gathering, they realize they have been utterly fucked
- Some chaos, quick decision of appointing/replacing ppl, trying to manage the fire, even talking to Sam (btw this might have been a fallback option for MS, that the board reinstates him with more control and guardrails, weakening the power of the non-profit)
- Sam joins MS, masks are off
- Employees on the sinking ship revolt, even Ilya realizes he was manipulated/fucked
- OpenAI dead, key ppl join MS, tech and rest of the company bought for scraps. Non-profit part dead. Capitalist victory
Source: subjective interpretation/deduction based on the available info and my experience working as a management consultant for 10 years (dealing with lot of exec politics, though nothing this serious)
Wow, that’s exactly my thoughts. Thanks for posting and taking the time.
But then why wouldn’t the board say exactly why Altman was removed?
“Least said, soonest mended,” as the saying goes: if you want the cleanest break possible, say as little as possible. It’s probably also why the board fired him via a virtual meeting after close of business on a Friday.
By stark contrast, both Altman and Brockman were on Twitter almost immediately thereafter, joined shortly by armies of supporters, making absolutely sure that everything happening over the weekend was as public as possible, almost play by play, and was also openly joined in the constant public commentary by the CEO of Microsoft, who became Altman’s employer less than 48 hours later.
Note that I’m not saying it’s wrong. But in regard to point #3 made above by @slaacaa@lemmy.world it all seems almost planned, especially when you throw in this tidbit from The Guardian:
Sam Altman ‘was working on new venture’ before sacking from OpenAI
Sam Altman, the recently sacked boss of OpenAI, the company behind the ChatGPT bot, was telling investors he planned to launch a new company before his shock departure, it was claimed.
No other info, but IF it’s true AND Altman was openly talking about planning a competitive service, then it does lend credence to the thought that Altman wanted to go, and to leave in such a way that he got to take whoever he wanted with him, because that is the kind of shit that gets you fired from your own board.
So, the board, with no financial gain, kicks him out and now investors want to fire the board. Money wins again.
The board wants him back too. The whole thing is a clown show.
No, they rejected that.
they wanted him back but he had the condition that they made an apology letter and cleared him of any wrongdoing. that’s when they changed their minds. if this is about not apologizing to save the company they do seem incompetent.
If the board didn’t need money they wouldn’t have investors.
TL;DR: still don’t know anything. No one seems interested in saying wtf they’re doing.
CEO/employees want money, non-profit board wants caution.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Friday, OpenAI’s board shocked investors and employees alike by firing CEO Sam Altman.
Marcus wrote about the situation on his Substack, sharing an analysis written by Fortune’s Jeremy Kahn earlier in the day.
In OpenAI’s unusual structure, a board “with no financial interest was supposed to look out for humanity,” Marcus wrote.
When faced with the potential financial repercussions of Altman’s removal, “the nominally subordinate for-profit (both employees and investors) quickly set to work to push out the board and to undo its decisions,” Marcus wrote.
Altman had told investors that if he did return to OpenAI, he wanted a new board and governance structure, according to the Wall Street Journal.
“The tail thus appears to have wagged the dog—potentially imperiling the original mission, if there was any substance at all to the Board’s concerns,” wrote Marcus.
The original article contains 501 words, the summary contains 138 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Wait so who are the baddies again?
Everyone
Probably shouldn’t rehire someone you probably fired over sexually assaulting his sister…
Is that what happened? First I’ve heard of that. Source?
I had never heard this before but googled it.
That’s kind of fucked up dang.
Not just the abuse but the disconnection afterwards is fucked. And when there is smoke like this and that sort of disconnect there is bound to be other shit lurking in the background.
Ah yes “themarysue.com”, where I get all my news from…
Ah yes “themarysue.com”, where I get all my news from…
Part of what makes this particular story noteworthy is the lack of coverage for so long by news outlets, so turning your nose up because of the news outlet that wrote the story kinda misses the point.
If you’re so critical of The Mary Sue that you’re not even willing to read the article, that sounds like a self-enforced echo chamber. You’re always free to find coverage by another news outlet or even write to a news outlet you respect asking them to cover this story.
“statistic dont apply to me!”
ok
There is none. There are some rumors and past allegations but no evidence or confirmation on why he was removed. Not sure why so many people go around spouting random things as facts.
Not sure why so many people go around spouting random things as facts.
People love that endorphin rush that comes from being part of a Two Minutes Hate on a “deserving” subject.
Take Sam’s dick out of your mouth and maybe you can find the source
Bro that’s multiple comments with you obsessed over this dudes cock. Just admit you love his cock and stfu
I don’t think he wants to fight you for it.
I love the jock riders down voting me. Maybe if you kiss Sam’s ass enough he’ll make you rich too 🥺
We aren’t downvoting you because we assume that didn’t happen. We are downvoting you because there is zero evidence that that is why he was fired.
Great! I’m being down voted because you lack reading comprehension
Ironic that you are accusing us of reading comprehension issues considering your link says the following:
While we obviously don’t have any insight into the company’s decision, there is a lot of speculation being thrown about online that the move to remove Sam Altman, which came just over a month after Annie Altman’s allegations garnered attention in October, may possibly have less to do with his business abilities snd more to do with personal controversies.
Your conclusion is based on nothing more than speculation, so you might want to work on your reading comprehension before going around accusing others of the same problem that you clearly are suffering from.
Homie I’m not the one coming to the rescue of a dude that sexually assaulted his sister.
Lol I’m not rescuing anyone, just pointing out the factual innacuracies in what you are saying. I have shown you where your evidence did not say what you were implying, but please, show me where I’m wrong with evidence.
ETA: also, you’re wrongly assuming I wouldn’t want him to be fired for sexual assaulting his sister. I do want that, but at the current time, there is nothing other than speculation that would imply that is why he was fired, so I’ve downvoted you for spreading misinformation and for doubling down on your misinformation once that fact has been pointed out to you.
- You have evidence of your accusation?
- You have evidence that is why he was fired?
No, and no.
This is why you’re being downvoted, and then you decide to double-down by insulting people. I would say that reflects an ideological perspective.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
There is a post on lesswrong which compiles the accusations made by the sister. Having worked with many incest victims, family scapegoats and Cinderellas I’ll say the story is familiar to what I’ve heard before and therefore credible.
Is it usual that all the family and even therapists side against alleged victim? I think it’s not impossible if the person is so traumatized and troubled to the point that the family rejects her but I struggle to believe that is the usual case.
Yes it is unfortunately common. The family members align in their identification of the scapegoat and their cohesion influences the involved therapists who do not realize the larger picture. The victims are themselves both traumatized and also inculcated family members so it is fairly common that the scapegoats do not realize how fucked up things are until they’re older. Incest families are often highly invested in a family ideal that both hides the ugliness and also enables it to flourish (because our golden boy would never do anything like that!). When the scapegoat finally figures it out and tries to tell the truth they are shut down by the defenders of the family ideal. It is easier to shun the truth teller than to accept that the family system is rotten and work to reform it. Also those who are privileged within the family frequently see nothing to gain by admitting wrongdoing and so don’t. It is as it is with any sort of privilege at the societal level. Those who have it tend not to see it and then resist giving it up even when the weight of evidence that harm is being done is large.
Is it usual that all the family and even therapists side against alleged victim?
On the family conspiring against a single member part, you might want to look up Harrison Post or watch the “Britney vs Spears” documentary (though that’s a bit different and doesn’t have to do with rape, Britney was the rich person and her family conspired against her to take over her wealth, had a psychiatrist, James Spar, fabricate a report against her that subsequently just miraculously disappeared from the court files and even picked a lawyer for her who would side with them).
Going back to this story, the “shht, let’s not ruin the future of our child prodigy, so even if Sam did something bad to you you will keep your mouth shut” is not that rare among families. Conspiracies by families to cover up rape done by one of them do happen:
- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-17474977
- https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2023/1009/1409829-abuse-sentencing/
- https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/esponsored/20230418/family-members-force-woman-hide-sexual-abuse
- https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/women-speak-out-on-how-families-cover-up-rape-by-loved-ones-20180808
Another very important point that makes Annie Altman’s story highly believable is that since 2020 she’s been resorting to sex work (and also begged on Instagram one day) just to survive, while Sam has a net worth of over half a billion. As I said in another comment, if one of your siblings needs to do sex work to survive while you have hundreds of millions of $s at your disposal, then no matter whether the accusations are true or not, you’re the bad person and there’s something fundamentally evil about you. Going back to the sex work part, here’s what the statistics say (translated from German: https://www.rheinmaasklinikum.de/Inhalt/Patienten/_doc/Evangelische/Hintergrundinformationen_zur_psychischen_Situation_von_maennlichen_und_weiblichen_Prostituierten.pdf ):
In Hamburg, 98% of sex-workers examined were diagnosed with at least one traumatic event. 83% had already experienced trauma in childhood (family violence 70%, physical abuse 65%, sexual abuse 48%). Trauma experienced during prostitution was found in 83% (physical attack 61%, rape 61%, threat with a weapon 52%). Here, 53% achieved an illness score in the sense of post-traumatic stress disorder. Abuse and dependence on illegal drugs at 74%. Similar alarming findings can be found in international comparative studies.
And also (https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-017-0491-y ):
Intimate partner violence was experienced by 21.2% of sex workers, and 23.4% reported client physical or sexual violence. The majority of sex workers (71.2%) reported childhood (i.e., when age <18 years) physical or sexual abuse.
I think you clearly can show that it’s possble but that doesn’t mean it’s likely the articles suggest it but they don’t have any statistics to back it up. there is no equivalence between being poor and conspiring to get someone’s money and cutting out someone from their inheritance.
I completely disgree with your view that if you have money you have to help family even if they are radioactive to you. in some cases it’s best to take distance. especially if the other person is so troubled that whenever you help it just backfires because they can’t stop the drama.
I don’t doubt that most sex workers have trauma issues or even childhood issues, the part I’m not finding easy to accept is that it’s likely that the family would usually side with the accuser.
Please link that.
You’ve been downvoted, but the posts from his sister definitely don’t look great, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was why the board kicked him out.
I’m getting downvoted by embrassed billionaires 😂
You’re getting downvoted for slinging homophobic slurs and insults at people who are questioning your unproven allegations.
Ding ding ding!! Winner!!
You’re being downvoted for being manic, atually. It’s cute how you think you matter that much lmao. Ya dont.
It’s hilarious that people think this had anything to do with ethics. Money. It’s always about money.
